AirForceVet:And same-sex couples can enjoy the pleasures of divorce too.

/BFD compared to not being able to get married in the first place.

I suspect this is actually how we'll get nation-wide SSM: a couple will get married in one state, move to another, petition to get a divorce, be denied, and then take it to the SC under the FF&C clause. I think we have one or two of these in the pipeline already.

Peki:AirForceVet: And same-sex couples can enjoy the pleasures of divorce too.

/BFD compared to not being able to get married in the first place.

I suspect this is actually how we'll get nation-wide SSM: a couple will get married in one state, move to another, petition to get a divorce, be denied, and then take it to the SC under the FF&C clause. I think we have one or two of these in the pipeline already.

/almost there, not quite

Why would they be denied? 'Recognize the marriage to dissolve it' is not the same as 'allow the marriage to happen in the first place'.

Really helps with inheritance taxes though: the entire reason Windsor started was because a lesbian tried to claim the marriage exemption after her spouse died.

You'd think the R's would be all over this: they hate the "death tax" with a passion and the case was a huge win for people trying to lower their taxes. Add to that more people getting married and you have a solid conservative case for letting the gays marry...

Peki:AirForceVet: And same-sex couples can enjoy the pleasures of divorce too.

/BFD compared to not being able to get married in the first place.

I suspect this is actually how we'll get nation-wide SSM: a couple will get married in one state, move to another, petition to get a divorce, be denied, and then take it to the SC under the FF&C clause. I think we have one or two of these in the pipeline already.

/almost there, not quite

Isn't there already a case moving through the courts? I think it involved a state employee being denied insurance coverage for his/her same-sex spouse because the state didn't recognize their marriage. I want to say it was in Oklahoma.

MFAWG:Peki: AirForceVet: And same-sex couples can enjoy the pleasures of divorce too.

/BFD compared to not being able to get married in the first place.

I suspect this is actually how we'll get nation-wide SSM: a couple will get married in one state, move to another, petition to get a divorce, be denied, and then take it to the SC under the FF&C clause. I think we have one or two of these in the pipeline already.

/almost there, not quite

Why would they be denied? 'Recognize the marriage to dissolve it' is not the same as 'allow the marriage to happen in the first place'.

If you look at the constitutional amendments in most states against same-sex marriage the language states that the state-level courts cannot do anything that would recognize a same sex marriage in the same way as a hetro-sexual marriage. In order to get a divorce you must first recognize a valid marriage as a valid marriage is a prerequisite to divorce. If you don't recognize the same-sex marriage then why do you need divorce, do single couples randomly file for divorces? No, and that is why courts in states with bigoted constitutional amendments will not grant same-sex divorce.

You've just abandoned the Reagan Democrats with this gay marriage ruling. It was the loss of working class voters in swing states that cost us the 2012 election, not the gay vote. Gays who stayed unmarried because of DOMA respect the rule of law and can see how self-centered a politician must be to fill this gay marriage ruling with favors, earmarks and crony capitalists' pork, and call it good. You disrespect gays with your assumption that they desire ignoring the rule of law.

jake3988:There is no marriage tax penalty... at least not anymore. If you and your life partner make the same amount, filing together, you pay the same as if you file separate. No difference. If you and your life partner make vastly different amounts (say, 100k and 0), then you get a massive tax break because you effectively pay the taxes on the average of the two incomes. In the weird event that somehow filing taxes together would cause you to pay more taxes (it shouldn't), file separately.

I think the marriage tax "penalty" is either a myth or something that's been dead for ages but still mentioned because of its fictional existence allows people to whine. I've always done my own taxes and for as long as I've been doing them, the above has been the case. As a single person it made me pissed that families would get huge tax breaks AND have the gall to complain about their tax burden. And I remember thinking that over ten years ago because I was using a 1040 to claim student loan interest and saw the difference. Any "penalty" would have to have been dead at least two administrations ago.

When I got married and my wife was unemployed, my taxes dropped like whoah -- I think the amount I saved topped $10k. We definitely started paying more once my wife got a job, but that's because her income was almost as high as mine. Double income = more taxes. We've run the numbers on filing jointly or separately and there's no real difference in our current situation.

If you're married and paying more in taxes, you're doing it wrong. But I think this is really more a case of retarded douchebags in America complaining about "problems" that don't even exist. We could repeal all federal income taxes today and by tomorrow they'll be talking about how the federal gas tax is Destroying America.

If you and your life partner make the same amount, filing together, you pay the same as if you file separate. No difference.

If you and your life partner make vastly different amounts (say, 100k and 0), then you get a massive tax break because you effectively pay the taxes on the average of the two incomes.

In the weird event that somehow filing taxes together would cause you to pay more taxes (it shouldn't), file separately.

I'm getting married tomorrow. I make about 80K and the wifey only works 5 hours a day, for $9.00 an hour. She probably brings home about 15K/year. Plus, we just bought a house a couple months ago, so I'm actually looking forward to next years taxes.

My significant other and I are not married and have a son. I file as Head of Household and I make more money than she does. I have used Taxcut to simulate the difference between us being married and filing jointly, us being married filing separately, and us filing as singles.

For us filing single was slightly more advantageous than filing jointly (we save $240). If we had been married filing separately we would have really been boned. The reason filing as single for us was better is that each of us could take advantage of certain deductions that have a maximum for single filers that is equivalent to that of married filers.

Parthenogenetic:You've just abandoned the Reagan Democrats with this gay marriage ruling. It was the loss of working class voters in swing states that cost us the 2012 election, not the gay vote. Gays who stayed unmarried because of DOMA respect the rule of law and can see how self-centered a politician must be to fill this gay marriage ruling with favors, earmarks and crony capitalists' pork, and call it good. You disrespect gays with your assumption that they desire ignoring the rule of law.

The Reagan Democrats were assholes, and a good chunk of them are dead now.

/the leader you use itches something fierce when it gets in between the teeth.

rugman11:Peki: AirForceVet: And same-sex couples can enjoy the pleasures of divorce too.

/BFD compared to not being able to get married in the first place.

I suspect this is actually how we'll get nation-wide SSM: a couple will get married in one state, move to another, petition to get a divorce, be denied, and then take it to the SC under the FF&C clause. I think we have one or two of these in the pipeline already.

/almost there, not quite

Isn't there already a case moving through the courts? I think it involved a state employee being denied insurance coverage for his/her same-sex spouse because the state didn't recognize their marriage. I want to say it was in Oklahoma.

The state is now legally required to recognize their marriage and provide all benefits. No if and's or but's about it.

dchurch0:jake3988: There is no marriage tax penalty... at least not anymore.

If you and your life partner make the same amount, filing together, you pay the same as if you file separate. No difference.

If you and your life partner make vastly different amounts (say, 100k and 0), then you get a massive tax break because you effectively pay the taxes on the average of the two incomes.

In the weird event that somehow filing taxes together would cause you to pay more taxes (it shouldn't), file separately.

I'm getting married tomorrow. I make about 80K and the wifey only works 5 hours a day, for $9.00 an hour. She probably brings home about 15K/year. Plus, we just bought a house a couple months ago, so I'm actually looking forward to next years taxes.

All will be well and good until wifey wants to buy a house in a town with a good school system- where prices are set by $160k earning families.

//we all learn wifey's true nature when the answer is "I can't afford (huge capital expense to a man, representing status and social tier to a woman)"

Peki:AirForceVet: And same-sex couples can enjoy the pleasures of divorce too.

/BFD compared to not being able to get married in the first place.

I suspect this is actually how we'll get nation-wide SSM: a couple will get married in one state, move to another, petition to get a divorce, be denied, and then take it to the SC under the FF&C clause. I think we have one or two of these in the pipeline already.

/almost there, not quite

There's already a more complicated case going on. Thomas Beatie (the so called "pregnant man" and his wife filed for divorce earlier this year in Arizona (where they had moved to at some point in the last few years). The judge there challenged the validity of their marriage based on the fact that Thomas had given birth despite being legally male (sterilization is not a requirement of gender reassignment anywhere in the US). As a result the presiding judge basically said he couldn't divorce them because Arizona didn't consider their marriage valid, even though they are legally different sexes.

If you and your life partner make the same amount, filing together, you pay the same as if you file separate. No difference.

If you and your life partner make vastly different amounts (say, 100k and 0), then you get a massive tax break because you effectively pay the taxes on the average of the two incomes.

In the weird event that somehow filing taxes together would cause you to pay more taxes (it shouldn't), file separately.

Taking a quick look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_penalty, it looks like the marriage tax penalty kicks in when both persons make over $73K or so. As unmarrieds, the income between $73K and $85K is taxed at 25%, but when married, filing either jointly or separately, those same dollars are taxed at 28%. May not seem like a lot, but it goes up as income goes up, as the brackets kick in earlier.

It's designed to not affect a (voting) majority of people, but it does exist. It will impact me when I get married next year as we're both professional high earners.. probably an extra $2-3k total between the two of us.

Why should the people who voted for an omnipresent socialist state that has the power to deny the will of the people (whether is was a good idea or not) in prop 8 have any problem paying the freight for said state.

FAFSA form will also be changing in 2014, I think. That means even unmarried hetero couples will not get a break like before. Glad for this change. It was unfair and penalized married couples with children and 2 incomes vs. people who chose to remain unmarried or gays with children.

Tax code 'marriage penalty' is only there once you get over a certain income. Has to be pretty high. And since most gay couples lives in states with high incomes, like CA and NY, I am guessing many of them will be in for a tax shock.

Wondering what some of the liberals on here think of the idea that a governor can just decide not to defend a law he doesn't like? What happens when the shoe is on the other foot? As in, what if the 'people' get an anti-gay marriage law passed, a gay couple takes it to court, and the governor chooses not to defend it? What then? Will this Supreme Court decision be so awesome? Like it or not, the Prop. 8 decision was really about who had standing to pursue the case. It wasn't about gay marriage.

k1j2b3:Wondering what some of the liberals on here think of the idea that a governor can just decide not to defend a law he doesn't like? What happens when the shoe is on the other foot? As in, what if the 'people' get an anti-gay marriage law passed, a gay couple takes it to court, and the governor chooses not to defend it? What then? Will this Supreme Court decision be so awesome? Like it or not, the Prop. 8 decision was really about who had standing to pursue the case. It wasn't about gay marriage.

Peki:AirForceVet: And same-sex couples can enjoy the pleasures of divorce too.

/BFD compared to not being able to get married in the first place.

I suspect this is actually how we'll get nation-wide SSM: a couple will get married in one state, move to another, petition to get a divorce, be denied, and then take it to the SC under the FF&C clause. I think we have one or two of these in the pipeline already.

/almost there, not quite

Lol that isn't how it works. Most you get out of it is allowed to divorce if denied for some odd reason not nation-wide SSM.

borg:rugman11: Peki: AirForceVet: And same-sex couples can enjoy the pleasures of divorce too.

/BFD compared to not being able to get married in the first place.

I suspect this is actually how we'll get nation-wide SSM: a couple will get married in one state, move to another, petition to get a divorce, be denied, and then take it to the SC under the FF&C clause. I think we have one or two of these in the pipeline already.

/almost there, not quite

Isn't there already a case moving through the courts? I think it involved a state employee being denied insurance coverage for his/her same-sex spouse because the state didn't recognize their marriage. I want to say it was in Oklahoma.

The state is now legally required to recognize their marriage and provide all benefits. No if and's or but's about it.

No, Oklahoma (and other states where same-sex marriage is illegal) is not required to recognize their marriage. The repeal of DOMA only affects federal benefits.

Our expeditionary wars in the past decade were a greater threat to traditional marriage than gay marriage. But yeah, there's a serious tax burden faced by DINK households with two professionals versus lower income or single income households.

I had a conversation about this with an IP lawyer. He's talked to his wife about drawing up all the domestic partner stuff to simulate marriage without the tax burden, but she'd rather he work fewer hours and just suck up the $20k a year their extra tax burden costs them.

The real question is what happens when they start to get divorced? In straight couples, the woman gets everything and the man goes to live in Section 8 housing. I guess now the government just expects gay couples to get divorced at the same rate as lesbian couples, and in those cases the lesbians get everything from both gays?

Man, what a headache that will be. I bet it goes all the way to the supreme court.

Why Would I Read the Article:The real question is what happens when they start to get divorced? In straight couples, the woman gets everything and the man goes to live in Section 8 housing. I guess now the government just expects gay couples to get divorced at the same rate as lesbian couples, and in those cases the lesbians get everything from both gays?

Man, what a headache that will be. I bet it goes all the way to the supreme court.

Why Would I Read the Article:The real question is what happens when they start to get divorced? In straight couples, the woman gets everything and the man goes to live in Section 8 housing. I guess now the government just expects gay couples to get divorced at the same rate as lesbian couples, and in those cases the lesbians get everything from both gays?

Man, what a headache that will be. I bet it goes all the way to the supreme court.

Peki:AirForceVet: And same-sex couples can enjoy the pleasures of divorce too.

/BFD compared to not being able to get married in the first place.

I suspect this is actually how we'll get nation-wide SSM: a couple will get married in one state, move to another, petition to get a divorce, be denied, and then take it to the SC under the FF&C clause. I think we have one or two of these in the pipeline already.

/almost there, not quite

After 13 years of progress since Matthew Shepherd, I'll take the inevitability of national SSM as a sign we're finally acting like adults about gay lifestyles.